Going back to the 1980 election of RR- I have noticed that with the demonization of liberalizm and the "who is more conservative" one-uppmanship of today's politicians- not one conservative elected I have noticed has been anything near fiscally conservative- in fact, the most fiscally conservative movement I have found was the Clinton/dem years 1990-1994. Hybirdization of certain housing programs using public/private programs (hope 6) the streamlining of beaurocratic paperwork (re-inventing goverment) and the 1993 budget plan to reduce the deficit are all old-guard conservative issues- while no self proclaimed conservative elected official has even come close to being fiscally conservative- including the current regime we have in power now. In fact- the current borrow and spend policy is actually worse than the old tax and spend policies!

In my own state- we have never had a "liberal" goverment. Yet, for all the rhetoric, as one of the richest states in the union, with republican governer, house, senate, veto proof majorities, for over 12 years, has never been able to fix our "fiscal gap"- read the article below.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/5061975p-4989759c.html

So what happened to fiscal conservatism?

Is there a un-healable split between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism?

Are fiscal conservative policies just right wing rhetoric for election purposes, or are there some actual economic principles that can be applied if we had an actual fiscal conservative in power?

Without a doubt this administration has been a disaster when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the reduction of government. Bush has expanded the government to unprecedented levels. He even brags about it. Go to his education page on his website for example, he is proud to point out that he has expanded federal control over education dollars by 59.8%.

You'll find similar results for health care, homeland security, the environment, ad infinitum...

Excuse after excuse after excuse for expanding the size of the federal government.

It is an unfortunate fact that it is through the government that political parties wield their power, so it is not in either major party's best interest to reduce spending. When they talk about reducing spending, that's code words for reducing the other party's programs.

This year the government will take in some $1.8 trillion and even that is not enough. They will borrow another $500 billion. That's a whole lot of wealth redistribution going on.

And yet the Republicans have done little to nothing to reduce the size of the federal government. Sure, they have given us token tax cuts, great! But Bush also ran on privatizing social security. He has done nothing to accomplish that goal. Nothing. Instead, they have expanded government.

The Republicans run on a platform of fiscal responsibility but the last 4 years, with them in control of both the executive and legislative branches of government they have conclusively demonstrated that they are not.

But that's just my opinion.

There is no doubt that "conservatives" are a very mixed bunch. They range from libertarian to theocratic (which are pretty much polar opposites, from a sociological point of view). That is why the term is so misleading. (But so is "liberal", as "liberals" vary from libertarian to socialist--some who consider themselves conservative and some who consider themselves liberal have nearly identical opinions on most issues.) And there is no "authority" that can decree who, in this whole debate, has the most "right" to the term.

By my standards of conservatism (pretty close to libertarian), the policies of the current government do not count as conservative on many, many issues. That puts me at odds with many other "conservatives" and actually puts me closer to some "liberals", at least on some issues.

But I don't see all of that as a real problem. It is good for America that there are more than two political options. Sure, in a major election, all but two of them are weeded out in the primaries, but they were still there at the outset. All that is really needed is to understand that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" can easily hide as much as they reveal.

Sure there's such a thing as conservatives who really are fiscally conservative. Try this as a thought experiment: Imagine an alternate US where the people, fed up with the standard government boondoggles, and wanting to give conservatives a chance to try to straighten it out, elect a provisional government consisting of a committee of the most popular conservative talk show hosts. Let's put on it, just for purposes of discussion: Bill O'Reilly; Rush Limbaugh; Sean Hannity; Michael Medved; Neal Boortz; Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.

Does anyone doubt that these gentleman, a motley lot though they are, ranging from anti-ideological populist conservative (O'Reilly) to religious conservative (Medved), to mainstream movement conservative a la National Review (Hannity and Limbaugh). to libertarian (Boortz), to isolationist paleocon (Buchanan), to hard to classify right-wing mad dog (Savage (don't take that the wrong way, Mike, I still love you)) but all non-neocon conservatives of some stripe, would come up with a balanced budget? Does anyone doubt they'd come up with a plan for reducing the size of government?

If we put a couple of certifiable neocons on it, say, William Kristol and Fred Barnes, that'd muddy the waters a bit since those guys don't have the anti-big government fervor all other strains of American conservatism share.

Of course real conservatives exist. They just currently aren't in control of any major party.

There is a disparity between ideological conservatives: writers, columnists, talk show hosts, etc. and politicians who claim to be conservative.

One of the huge problems with being a politician is that, in general, people are going to vote for the person who will personally benefit them the most. In most instances, this involves the candidate who will promise this program or that program, this subsidy or that. Very rarely can a politician successfully run on a platform of "Getting the Government Off of Your Back"™. Nobody is going to vote in the hope that you WON'T do something.

In general, conservatism is based upon the principle of "He who governs best, governs least" (Thoreau) Unfortunately, it is virtually unviable to do this as a politician in the United States. People want action, they want programs, they want protection, they want...and they want...and they want.

A true Conservative would immediately be attacked as callous and uncaring by his opponents. There are no Conservative politicians at the Federal level, in my opinion. They aren't viable candidates .

Amlord,
This actually gets straight to the heart of the fiscal vs. social conservative issue. I strongly believe in the Thoreau statement you put forward, but don't believe it would apply to the social conservative (ie--religious right) movement. Too often, this movement seeks to use government intervention to enforce their ideology, directly contradicting the 'governs least' policy.

As to the rest of the quoted statements, I attended a very interesting speech by Ross Perot, during his second run at the Presidency. His main topic was a paper entitled 'The Inevitable Fall of Democracy' (I think), by some Scottish philosopher a long time ago. He cited the very phenomenon you state as reason any democracy was eventually doomed to failure--as politicians would constantly cater to all the fringe groups, promising them what they want, all at a relatively small cost (per program) to the majority. In essence, the needs of the few would always outweigh the needs of the many, since that would be the way to win their vote. To my dismay, I found it impossible to argue with the logic of the essay--which brings up the question "Are democracies doomed to failure?" (separate thread, anyone?).

As to your last comments above--this is exactly the mindset that the term 'compassionate conservative' seeks to address. Often, the governmental programs which convervatives would seek to eliminate will often also work better for the beneficiaries, as well (consider welfare reform). However, it is usually far too easy for the proponents of such programs to paint the picture of the evil, nasty conservative out to cut everyone's programs simply in the interest of saving a few bucks. The 'compassionate conservative' terminology was designed specifically to thwart such criticism, allowing a platform on which the benefits of fiscal conservatism could be discussed. The success of such terminology remains to be seen

When I said "Conservative" I should have said "fiscal Conservative"...


The quote you refer to is:


This quote is supposedly from Alexander Tyler in 1787, a History professor at Edinborough University. Although the quote's origin is dubious, its content is arguably applicable to the United States. The US's largest long term future problem is likely to be fiscal responsibility, where the government simply cannot say "NO" to its constituents in the way a parent can say "NO" to their children when they are unable to provide everything that child wants (or, in some cases, needs). This will be one of the great pitfalls the US must overcome. I simply do not see any politicians, of either Party, sufficiently clinging to the notion of fiscal conservatism.

I would believe that to be the case. Elliott Richardson wrote a book a few years back that was just wonderful. I believe it was called: "Reflection of a radical moderate" or something along that line. In it, he describes how many rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives would talk a big game, but would give in and raise taxes or do things that liberals wanted to do as soon as an economic castrophe was on the horizon or something needed funding really bad. He listed William E. Simon as such a person who talked, but then walked as a more pragmatic individual. Likewise, many GOP senators talk about fiscal responsibility during election time, but don't mind bringing home the pork-barrel projects to their home districts.

See- I think in fiscal conservatism- radicalism on either side, either no funding to programs, or too much funding to programs, is not conservatism- and I think usually, the check in the system is that if the economy starts to fail, the party in power starts to lose. The fallacy of the masses "voting themselves bread and butter and voting to make water run up hill"- is not true, because, the masses don't vote! It just seems that those that have a stake in the economy seems to vote the most- i.e.- homeowners. For all the talk about welfare rolls voting, they simply don't make up a very large voting bloc.

As soon as the economy tanks, we get a new leadership regime. Only when the public irrationally clings to a economic loser do we seem to have a real problem.

Clinton stayed in power, because he knew this I think- no matter who you "blame" for the Clinton economy during his presidency- he didn't do things that would make it tank either- and was paid with re-election. And as one of the great deficit hawks of our time, one of the greatest of all time actually, he was probably the only true fiscal conservative of the last century.

This is one of the more ironic aspects of the Clinton years. It is hard to argue that under Clinton's watch the deficit was profoundly reduced. However, to be fair, the Republican upset on '94 also contributed to deficit reduction. Without the fiscal conservatives brought into the House, it would have been very difficult to reduce the deficit further. That said, the Republican plank of limited government has been all but defenestrated in my opinion.

For me, it's actions which matter not equivocations. I believe that deficit reduction is one of the most important issues. Empirically, it seems that fiscally conservative Republicans must be a dying breed. So, now, I have to look to Democrats for some modicum of restraint. That just seems wrong to me but there you go.

What people always ignore is that big deficits put pressure to reduce the size of government. We could balance the budget with huge tax increases..and give Congress, and the current administration, a free reign to continue increasing spending. The key point is not fiscal conservatism, but reducing the size of government.

What people always ignore is Perot's contribution to spurring deficit reduction.

1) point of order logophage- the deficit reduction package was passed in 1993 PRIOR to the republican takeover
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/Budget2000/surplus.html

it does trumpet itself a bit , however, it does provide a timeline to the bill


Ross Perot I think had a profound impact on Clinton IMO- and remember, it was always Clinton's mantra "It's the economy stupid"

Still- it is hard to argue that Clinton was probably the most fically conservative president since WW2

I agree that reducing the size of the government is a good thing™. But, I disagree that big government deficits put pressure to reduce that size. The reason is that while in theory there may be pressure, in practice it obviously is not sufficient. Without spending restraint, government will grow. It doesn't seem to matter whether we have the money or not. Republicans will borrow and spend. And at least some Democrats will tax and spend (though perhaps not Clinton-style Democrats).

Thanks for reminding me about Perot. While I didn't like him as a presidential candidate, I did like that he offered important perspectives to the political debate.

One more point: I profoundly disagree with Colin Powell that the Republican Party is a "big tent". The days of fiscally conservative Republicans (if there ever were) are long gone.

Just a point, the definition of fiscal conservatism, among mainstream economists has changed. Few totally reject the Keynesian notion that deficits should occur during recessionary years. I think a modern fiscal conservative is more likely to hold a view close to a balanced budget over the economic cycle. Deficits help fuel the economy during a recession and surpluses help reign in inflation during an economic boom. The old fiscal conservative thought, by those knowledgeable in economics,that budgets should always remain in balance was killed off by the Great Depression. Of course our politicians still come up with such ridiculous notions as balance budget amendments.

Of course what people have also ignored is that Clinton benefitted from the "peace dividend" that came about as a result of the end of the Cold War. That "peace dividend" came to a screeching halt on a date I am sure we all remember.

I agree that the balanced budget amendments are a poor solution to an endemic problem. I also agree that going into debt as a way offsetting huge negative spikes in the budget is good. Saving similarly serves the same purpose to offset huge positive spikes. However, there's a point at which deficits have no grounding in good economic policy. I believe we've well-exceeded that point. And to bring this back on topic, if there are any fiscally conservative Republicans out there, then they must have been cowed by the socially conservative Republicans. You know the "you're either with us or against us" ideologues.

The split is coming, that's a definite. Pat Buchanan has a column out this week on the coming GOP civil war. He lists four issues as items that Republicans could fight over. (1)immigration-amnesty vs. no amnesty; (2)Republican big government; (3)neo-imperialism; (4) NAFTA-GATT trade deals.

Though I think Pat is getting a little bit ahead of himself on point #1, I believe that folks like him are a dying breed who just aren't with the times anymore. He's also mistaking a civil war with a tidal wave on some of these issues.



Sure Pat, and that's why the Reform Party is a shell of it's former self!

I think that the new attitude to debt comes from the realisation made during the Reagan years that administrations can get away with levels of government debt that people think are horrific, both politically and economically. It turns out that debt doesn't harm the economy as much as some people thought it did, so politicians are happy to take the easy options every time - cut taxes and raise spending. It has to stop at some point, of course, but no one knows when. Until they get into trouble they'll just keep going, I guess.

I can only really speak for myself, from my perspective. Being a Liberal, Alternative-ish, Hippy-ish, Punk-ish youth I can say with expertise that most of the younger/hip crowd, i.e. 90% my high-school, sees christian, right, Republican, and Conservative as synonymous. Yes, the talking heads for the right and the Conservatives are George W. "Bible-Boy" Bush, and the sly Pat R(g)o(d)bertson. I don't mean to be satirical, well I do, but the reality is that fiscal conservatives just don't get anywhere near as much Limelight as Low-Brow Bible-Thumpin' Cowboys and Geezers. I know that there are respectable economically oriented conservatives out there, who strive to balance budgets and further financial growth, they just don't ever get a microphone. The media has had fun making George Bush look like a buffoon, it's good business since he's easy to make fun of, he's a delightfully comical character, as well as a passionate-cardboard-cutout-western-action-movie-star-type. Great for TV, even better when he engages in open discourse and makes a fool of himself on live TV.
This is just my perspective, cynical yes, but honest. My point is that the right/Conservatives/Republicans are all together represented by the wrong people, and these wrong people perpetuate a strong stereotype that is hard to forget for us lefties. It doesn't help that Christianity, which is everywhere, and can be creepy for those who aren't Christian, is EVERYWHERE and closely to both parties (and America), but especially the Right. Perpetuated sterotypes I say.

Everything 'conservative' today revolves around what will Kill democracy, no rules. Their theory presently is tht democratic government can be bankrtupted, or the consumer economy that has their endeavors so stymied can be destroyed through deficit spending, and the work force wil just volunteer to fall into their slavery trap in order to keep eating., along with foreclosure on most property that will seal the fate of the wealthy theocrats into their 'aristocrat' or 'aryan' slots.

Whatever they do has only to do with schemes to destroy democracy, overspemding, underspending, whatever they vision as eventually bringing about it's demise.

Social conservatives do get a lot of the limelight, you are very correct in that assertion. You have t.v. preachers on sunday who spout their message(i.e.-coral ridge ministries) as well as compelling cases like after school bible clubs and teaching of evolution. I've seen students with a religious right book cover that has bible verses on it and the first amendment printed on, somehow a dare towards radical faculty members to do something about it. Fiscal conservatism isn't as compelling as the above issues. I don't see high schoolers, let alone adults, arguing the nuances of a document by Ludwig Von Mises or the latest Tom Friedman article. I mean, really. Kids enjoy discussing the former issues, not economic ones that tend to be too abstruse for even the most prodigious student.